I just watched both of these around Christmas time. I didn't really care for the first. It was an average silly Hollywood comedy with a story we've seen in some form a million times. I felt it was a poor vehicle for a talented cast. I got the feeling I get when I see Jack Black star in another bad movie that wastes his talent.
I then watched the theatrical PG-13 version of the second movie. Yes it was sillier and more ridiculous. But I felt like it was more inspired. I enjoyed it more. The first was a mediocre movie. The second one took chances and reveled in it's absurdity. The story took more unexpected chances, for example, like Ron going blind. It was like a movie within a movie, one parodying after-school-special-like stories about the character that goes blind. Where the blind person goes through that whole "poor me" phase until they get to the "I can do it! Leave me alone" phase.
Yes, for instance, the "gang" fight was sillier. But the original's was not that funny to begin with. It was a premise without a real payoff. The gag wore off before the fight even started. But part 2's fight went completely over the top, mocking the already tired idea of the news crews as gangs. I don't think it was supposed to be "funny" in a regular way, but instead meant to see just how absurd the scene could get.
Maybe it's just that I see a little "Tim and Eric"-type comedy in Anchorman 2. Where you have to put forth a little effort to be in on the joke. One can't appreciate the whole movie by just sitting back and being entertained on a surface basis, but rather he is rewarded for viewing it as a self-aware parody. Even of itself. It's comedy that seems as low-brow as it can get, but actually it's a bit more sophisticated than first thought.
reply
share